Ireland
appeared before the Human Rights Committee (HRC) to present its fourth periodic
report on compliance with the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and was pressured to expand access to
abortion, despite silence of the treaty on the issue, and despite the fact that
Ireland recently legalized abortion for life of the mother and threat of
suicide exceptions. Some members of the HRC recommended that Ireland allow
increased access to abortion.

The
official news of the review reported
that “easing restrictions for abortion” was one
of the main discussion topics and stated that one unnamed committee expert
asked if the Irish people had ever been given the chance to vote on reducing
restrictions on abortion. This expert relayed information claiming that
recent opinion polls in Ireland showed that 70 per cent of the people supported
abortion in cases of fetal anomaly, incest and rape and asserted that the HRC
puts the right to life and health of the mother first.

A committee member
also wanted to know if the situation where some women travel abroad to seek
abortion is not considered discrimination against those women who cannot afford
to do so.

The
official news also included comments by another expert who while commenting
that the 2013 act to legalize abortion represented a
“step forward regarding the life of the mother” this expert stated that it was
“regrettable that Ireland did not show readiness to expand the list of criteria
for abortion”.

In regards to Irish
law on abortion, a member of the Irish delegation explained that it had
“evolved over time and in the democratic process” with the attempt to “seek a
careful balance between the provisions on the life of the unborn and protecting
the life of the mother”. It was affirmed that “protecting life was a
central tenet of Ireland’s national and international obligations” and that
there had been five separate referenda on abortion.

In response to the HRC’s
questions, another Irish delegate explained that the delegation fully understood
the points raised on abortion by the Committee and stated that it would require
a new constitutional referendum to expand the list of grounds for abortion and
that opinion polls “had varied in relation to the topic, and did reflect
changing views”.

The delegation explained that there were a number of
agencies providing advice and assistance for women who experienced crisis
pregnancies and that the number of teenage pregnancies and women traveling
abroad for abortions had been significantly reduced.

Of the many NGOs present for the review, one
pro-life organization, Family and Life, was able to make an oral
presentation.It had also submitted a
written statement in advance of the review, an effective and strategic action.
All related documents can be found on the HRC website by Ireland’s flag.

Family & Life's oral intervention was
made by its legal advisor Dr Thomas Finegan, who emphasized that there is no
such thing as a right to abortion in international human rights law; that the
unborn child is recognized as a human rights subject by various international
human rights law provisions; and that UN Treaty monitoring bodies have no legal
authority to issue binding interpretations.

The written statement included: “The right to
life of the unborn is guaranteed by the Irish Constitution (Article 40.3.3).
The provision for abortion in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act is
based only on the assumption that there are situations in which the right to
life of the unborn may conflict directly with the equal right to life of the
mother. Where the right to life of the mother is not engaged, it is clear that
any assault on the right to life of the unborn would be quite unconstitutional.”

According to the
official report, at the end of the review, Committee chairman,
Sir Nigel Rodley (UK), stated that it was “welcome
that the delegation was ready to hear out the Committee’s concerns over
abortion regulations, and that the life of the woman was given priority over
the unborn.” He expressed regret that the revised abortion provisions “did not
extend to the health of the woman”.

Family and Life
reported that the chairman
described the pro-life submission as "breathtakingly arrogant", while
“denying that the unborn child is an existent human being”.

“There
is no right to abortion in international law. Well-funded abortion industrylobby groups are seeking to mislead the
United Nations Committee here in Geneva today
by suggesting that the unborn child has no right to life. Such a suggestion iscontrary to human rights law”

“As
a society, we cannot claim to be genuine defenders of human rights unless we also protect the right to life of unborn
children. What’s at stake in this debate is whether
or not we respect the inherent value of every human life. The pro-choice groups pushing hard for abortion at
today’s hearings in Geneva always sidestep theissue
of what rights should be afforded to unborn babies throughout the full nine months of pregnancy.”

“I sincerely hope the UN Human Rights
Committee will defend the right to life and reject
the international push from US based groups like the Center for Reproductive Rights who are determined to impose an abortion
regime on Ireland. The UN knowsthat
there is no international right to abortion in law. If the UN were to adopt aposition explicitly endorsing abortion, it
would do incalculable damage to its credibility
as a protector of genuine human rights.”